hosting our discussion today is nina, who is director of our center for health policy studies and a past recipient of heritage's campbell award for her outstanding contribution to the analysis and promotion of a free society, particularly in her work on the schip debates. before joining heritage she served on capital hill for jim demeant and the worked in the senate earlier than that, working for senator jesse helms, please join me in welcoming my colleague. [applause] >> well, thank you, john, and thanks to you for being at our event today. tuesday night, president obama barely mentioned his landmark legislative victory, the patient protection and affordable care act, and there's no wonder. americans continue to dislike the healthcare law more than they like it. it seems every day they're a new
flip or contradiction that surfaces raising more doubt this plan can work. further click -- complicating matters is the decision of the supreme court considering the constitutionality of the law. it is still critically important that americans are reminded unless the supreme court strikes down the law in its entirety, there's still plenty to be concerned about. today we're going to hear from a distinguished panel of healthcare experts who will discuss why full repeal remains other top priority and to provide a vision for what a responsible healthcare reform proposal would look like. let me introduce them to you. first, sally pipes, president and ceo of the pacific research institute. sally is the author of two books on the healthcare law, the and
the "pipes plan" the top ten ways to dismeantle and replace obamacare. second, we'll hear from michael kanard, wrote the book of bad medicine. and finally, last but not least, we'll hear from grace-marie turner, president of the gayland institution. following enactment of the healthcare law, grace-marie and jim caputo, tom miller at the american enterprise institute, and ours truly, bob moffet of the heritage foundation, joined together to publish the book "why obamacare is wrong for america." please join me in welcoming them to heritage today. we'll start with sally.
>> thank you, nina, and thank you, heritage. imdelighted to be here. with the historic vote the 2700 page patient protect andfordable care act was passed into may on march 23, 2010. how fast two years have gone. almost the second anniversary. as nina mentioned it was interesting to me that at the state of the union on tuesday evening, the president devoted only 44 words to healthcare reform and i think it has to do with the fact that only about 53% of americans support repeal of this legislation. so, i wrote my first book, about obamacare, because when nancy pelosi said we have to pass the law to find out what's in it, i thought i could write something in 270 pages to actually say what is in it. unfortunately i don't know if she read my book. my new book, "the pipes plan"
was in response to the people that are always criticizing the members of congress who support repeal. when you don't like the law, but what is your plan? i would just do a ten-point plan, giving members of congress staffers some idea of what some of the ideas should be for refeel and then relaying it. i like to say, understanding health care is similar to unraveling an onion. many layers and many tearful moments. we all want to find affordable, accessible, quality care for all americans. that's our goal. how do we achieve that goal? there are two visions. one which empower -- which focused on empowering doctors and patients. the other focuses on increasing the role of government in our healthcare through increased taxes, mandates, subsidies, and ultimately controls on insurance companies. remember, obama gave 38 speeches on health care before it was passed. the law was passed and he
started talking early about healthcare reform but switched to talk about health insurance reform. so, the president gave, as i said, 58 speech but also, i think, wants medicare for all. i think he really wants a single pair canada style health care system which i grew up with in canada. so, how do we achieve universal coverage and then the cost curve down? the united states in 2010 spent 17.9% of gross domestic product on healthcare. it's a lot but we demand the very best. americans want everything right now. canada, the country i'm from, spent 10.4% of gdp hundred health care. the global budget is set by government. of course, the canadians demand much more in healthcare so you get long waiting list. at the fraser institute we standardded a publication called waiting your turn, guide to hospital waiting lists in
canada. last year the average wait in canada from seeing a primary care doctor to getting treatment bay specialist was 19 weeks. that's almost five months. and it's the longest time since the recording of wait times. so it's very, very important that obama care be repealed and replaced with an agenda that brings about affordable, accessible, quality care. the other point is that doctors -- i believe that a number of doctors, a lot of doctors are going to get out of the practice of medicine unless this law is repealed. an accounting firm said 75% of doctors are upset about obamacare and it's going to impact negatively how they practice medicine. the other key point is that the study shows that 69% of doctors feel that the best and the brightest are not going to go into medicine and that is very discouraging for the future of our health. in my book, the truth about
obamacare, i talk bat number of pillars, about 14 of them. we don't have time today. i'm going to talk about the replacement issues. but the president wanted universal coverage and to bend the cost curve down. those were his two main goals. we're not going achieve universal coverage, the cbo, says by 2019. 23 million americans will still be uninsured. we're going to add 16 to 18 million people to medicaid. the program for low-income americans. and if you look at the uninsured number, 50.2 million americans, 17 million of them are eligible for medicaid and schip and hasn't signed up. the question is why? i believe it's because doctors get low reimbursement rates, even lower treating medicaid patients than medicare, and these people turn up at emergency rooms because they get care there on bending the cost curve bill, the president wanted a bill that cost 9 billion over
ten years. it came in over 940 billion, and the cbo says it's up to 5 trillion, and i believe in 2014 to 2024 the cost of the legislation will be about $2.5 trillion, maybe even more, because the real cost drivers, adding people to medicaid, the individual mandate, the employer mandate, the adding of 16,000 new irs agents, the ending of discrimination based on preexisting conditions and lifetime caps are huge cost drivers and obama was politically astute in bringing in the cost drivers after the 2012 election. the individual mandate, i think, is a very bad idea. the galen institution, the benjamin rush society are feeling a brief in the supreme court case on the individual mandate, and its impact on uncompensated care and what that's going to do to the cost
of care. the court will have three days of hearings starting march 26th. we expect a decision on -- at the end of june. the court is considering a number of issues, the individual mandate, the issue of severability, can the states be forced to ad all these 18 million people to medicate, and the antiinjunction act. if this is a tax, which i believe it is, can the court -- can the government start counting a tax before it actually is introduced in 2014? because they won't be able to see the impact of the tax until 2015 when people file their tax returns. so the that is a very, very important issue, the individual mandate and the unconstitutionality verse constitutionality. the real problem i see if the court rules the mandate is constitutional, this is the first time the federal government will have the power to tell us not only we have to
buy health insurance in the private market, but what will be the limit of that power. will we have to buy the prius car? what will we be told we have to live on broccoli and have no meat? so it's a very, very important case, and a key to obamacare. many economists, myself included, believe that if this legislation is not repealed and replaced and, as i mentioned, the president really, i believe, wants a single pair system -- private insurers are going to be crowded out of the market because ultimately there will be a public option. already talk about it. so private insurers will not be able to compete and there's a study showing private insurers are already out of the market in insurance. so then well are be left in a single payer system where care is rationed, re face long waiting list and we have access in canada to the latest technology treatment where will the betts governor -- guest
doctors go? i believe the president, nancy pelosi and hari reid have an ideological vision that government should be making decisions for us rather than ourselves making individuals about hour our lives are to be built and it's a very, very frightening scenario. on repeal, i think a few things could be done right now. the 2.3% tax on medical devices that comes into effect in 201 should be repealed. the ipad, the independent payment advisory board,shoo be repealed. democrats don't like it as well. so that's a very important part. that's going do control a lot of how our seniors receive their medicare, their health care under medicare. and repeal of the class act. it was said it cannot be sustainable so they're not moving forward but the house will produce a bill to repeal the class act and it's very, very important it is repealed. i don't know if the senate will vote to repeal or whether the
president will veto it. he did sign the bill to end the 1099 reporting requirement but i really hope the class act can be repealed. so, how do we achieve universal coverage? i talk about these are the solutions in my book. i believe that in 2012, we need a new congress, we need a new president, and then early in 2013, congress can repeal the patient protection and affordable carack and replace it with an agenda and the things i believe in. so what its the replace alleged? first, we need to empower doctors and patients and support health savings accounts. that is one of the first. we need to change the federal tax code. the government got us into this mess in the first place during world war ii when wage ask price controls were in. so 60% of americans get their health care through their player. we get it with pretax dollar. individuals, without a job, you have to buy your health care
with aftertax dollars. i want them to change the tax code so individuals can get their insurance with predynamics dollars. people should be able to buy their health insurance across state lines. why should a young man in new york, a statement which has guaranteed issued community raiding have to pend $500 on health insurance, when he is young. he should be able to buy the health insurance plan that suits his individual needs. we also need to get states to reduce those state mandates. 2100 across the country. they ad 20 to 50% to the cost of insurance. why -- if i want to buy health insurance plan that has inveto fertilization, but why should mike tanner buy an insurance plan to subsidize what want. if nina wants a plan to cover alcohol rehabilitation to allow her to survive all of this work barack
on obamacare so getting the states rereduce those mandates. medical malpractice reform, this should be a state issue, not a federal issue. the cost of medical malpractice and cost of defense of medicine is $210 billion a year according to price water house coopers. we have seen in texas in '03, when they dead med-mal reform, 16,000 new doctors have gone back to texas. med-mal rates have gone down, and in may of last year, rick perry, the governor of texas, find a law which would be -- that loser pays, which is very important. but the president said over and over again, doctors, you know, do too many tested. they want to line their pocket with moneys. doctors practice defensive medicine for the reason they are afraid of being sued. we also need to expand the access to health savings accounts. i believe the president doesn't like health savings accounts. he doesn't want people to be in charge of their health care. that's where we're seeing
reduction in premiums, and particularly for younger people, hs as or way to go. we need to regulate state-based exchanges. a number of states have returned the money and others have got waivers, california was the first state to take the money because everything liberal happens in california. but we need to as i say, support hsas. we don't neat got -- don't need government control. weed in to do medicare reform. we cannot continue with these entitlement programs, medicare, medicare, and social securitied a they have been going on. medicare will be bankrupt by 2024 if we don't make changes. so, when it was set up in 1965, the average person lived to age 65. today they live to age 80. and so we need to raise the eligibility age. we need to means test it. why should a person like warren
buffet, who pays less tax than his secretary, -- why should he be on a government-run program. medicare should be there for the people that -- the seniors that need it. so raise the eligibility age. mean testing, voucherrize or do premium support in medicare. then we can control costs. nancy pelosi said over and over again, with we do premium support, all of our seniors will be night the streets. seniors will be dying in the streets unless we make changes to entitlement programs. and then medicaid. we need to do -- change to medicaid, we need to do block grants to the states, and this is an important part of the supreme court case on the power of the federal government to force states to expand their medicaid programs. the question i asked, who do you want to be in charge of your healthcare? an hmo boy, a government bureaucrat, or you yourself.
as danny williams, the premiere of a province in canada said, i went to mt. sinai hospital to have my heart surgery done because i couldn't get it in newfoundland. i was going to be on a long wait. he went to mt. sinai, paid out of pocket had his surgery done. when he came back the canadian media was furious. this is sir issue, single payerhawkhawk, and danny williams says it's my health, my heart, and my choice. universal choice this deuniversal coverage. we're on the rod to cerf dom unless the law is repealed and replaced. and that's the only solution, and if you think hillary rodham clinton -- if you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it's free. [applause]
>> thank you all very much for coming out, and thank you to the heritage foundation for having me here. for those who are stuck inside the beltway, first of all, i'm sorry. but second, you'll know that the heritage foundation and the cato institute don't always see eye-to-eye when it comes to health care. in fact, grace-marie, they have to lock us in the room together until we can come to turns. one thing we absolutely agree on and that is that the patient protection act is an absolute disaster, and needs to be repealed in its entirety. i'm going to focus my remarks today on just one aspect of and it that's the cost. even though the president only devoted 189 words of his "state of the union" address to the question of deficits and debt, i believe that that is truly the overriding issue of our time.
after all, we're still borrowing 34-cents out of every dollar this country spends. we have a $15 trillion on the books debt at this point. and it includes the unfunded liabilities of so-security and medicare, our total indebtedness exceeds $120 trillion. and that context, the cost of obamacare becomes crucial. and if you all remember, of course there was that great moment just before obamacare passed in which harry reid and nancy pelosi came on the steps of the capitol and nearly dislocating their shoulder bass they thy packed themselves on the back so hard and they got the patient act down do $940 billion. now, shows how long i have been stuck around washington because i remember when 940 billion was actually a lot of money. now i realize it's the rounding
error in the latest bailout. but really is a substantial amount of money. the problem is that the ink wasn't even dry on the bill before that 940 billion number began to unravel. 'it seems, for example, they may have left out a few things. for example, there is the actual cost of implementing the bill. which the congressional budget office estimates to be about $115 billion. that's the cost of everything from hiring the new irs agents who have to enforce the individual mandate, to hiring people to oversee the exchanges, to the new insurance regulators. all of this is going to have a cost. but this is in was lingo, authorized but not appropriated funds so doesn't have to be counted as the cost of the bill because it's not being spent yes. it will be in the future but they don't actually count it just yet. then, of course, a little
sleight of hand whereby they assumed that medicare would be cut by 23% in order to help fund this. this would be notorious doc fix idea in fairness i have to say that 23% cut was actualfully current law, had been since 2001. and every year congress looked at this and not being particularly suicidal, they postponed the cut. but in order to get the cost down to 940 billion it was assumed that in 2010, for the very first time, that cut would actually take place. and not to assume that anyone in washington is actually cynical, but at the very same time they were assuming that the 23% cut would take place, they were introducing a separate bill to repeal the 23% cut. when asked, they said, that's a whole separate bill.
okay, the cost is $350 billion but that's over here. that's not part of our bill. you can't count that as our cost. think how much better your household budget would like if you said your mortgage was a whole discost and didn't have to counsel it. so we didn't get the whole repeal of the 23% cut. we got the usual postponement of it. it's already been postpone divide and if you have been watching the dustup of the bill to cut the payroll tax, you know that part of that is another year postponement of the 23% cut. so we can scratch that 350 bill savings as well in addition to that there was some double counting that win in, famous washington bookkeeping ways. the bill reduces medicare spending by $500 billion in addition to the 23% cut, the additional 500 billion they're going to save by introducing
efficiency, by wiping out the medicare advantage program and doing things of that nature. they used the 500 billion to, quote, extend at the life of the medicare trust fund and simultaneously that same 500 billion funds the cost of subsidies under obama care. even in washington, spending the same dollar twice is a problem. so maybe you can't double count that. they also double count social security taxes and pay social security benefits and obamacare. there's a number of these gimmicks that are built in, and if you take these out and add the costs together you find that the real cost of the bill is upwardses of 2.5 to $2.7 trillion. now, that probably understates the problem because since then we have learned a couple of other things. for example, they actually included $50 billion of revenue that came from the class act,
which is a giant ponzi scheme that took them $50 billion in now and paid it out beyond the ten year budget revenue so they could count the revenue but didn't count the pay you since it turns out the class act is not going to take place, decree cbo says you can't count the $50 billion anymore. so you have that $50 billion in costed. then finely the cost of subsidies under the exchanges. when the bill was passed they originally estimated 9 million americans would be put in healthcare exchangeness the states. the estimates now are in excess of 20 million americans will go in, and even that is probably underestimated because there be an incentive on behalf of business to dump their employees into the exchanges where it's cheaper because you have to pay the penalties of 2 or $3,000 penalty for not insuring someone versus $7,000 for actually paying for their insurance, or thousand paying for their insurance.
and you can dump on the exchange, the federal government will subsidize them, you don't have to pay for them, you're better off paying the penalty and getting your workers out and then you don't have the has of people coming in and dealing with your h.r. department because they're unhappy with the insurance plan and you save money. the more people dumped into the exchanges, the more subsidies the federal government has to shell out. and even if you go from the nine to 20 million americans in there, that will add $500 billion to the cost of this bill over and above the three trillion or so we're already talking about. so, we just keep piling more and more costs into this bill. we're paying for it. we have 600 to $800 billion in taxes, $3 trillion in costs, plus if you notice, there's a shortfall, and that's the problem we have been dealing with on behalf of the whole federal government. frankly, you could have summed up the entire "state of the union" address in two words,
we're broke. we don't have a couple of trillion dollars lying rained to continue to pay for this very costly and wasteful and dangerous program. so i think if you leave aside all the bad impact on health care that we're going to hear about the increase in weight times, all the other bad things it's going to do, we need repeal this simply as a matter of fiscal sanity, thank you all very much. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you, nina for hosting us today and thank you, tissuely, and heritage for hosting this. thank you all for coming. 2012 is the year that counts, the year that's really going to determine not only the future of health care in america but i believe the future of our tree dom, because if the law stands, what on earth can congress not
commandeer us and the states to do in violation of constitutional principles? either we are going to turn our health sector into centralized system controlled by a few elite policymakers, or we're going to get to work fix real problems that do exist in our health sector and putting in places policies that get the incentives right that puts doctors and patients in charge of medical decisions and begin to reform medicare and medicaid. met cared, which i truly believe is the worst healthcare program in america, and yet one that, by the time this law is fully up and running, will have 87 million people in its program. that is not an acceptable outcome, and it still leaves 23 million people uninsured. we have to fix this.
when the court makes its decision, it could range from throwing out the whole law to letting the whole law stand, or some probably much more likely, complex decision in between. i think the -- probably most optimistic and perhaps most realist stick scenario they declare the individual mandate institutional in some narrow frame -- that's my hope -- but they leave the rest of the law standing, which is going to be a big mess. people that are really beginning to think the president, he justification mentioned a few things, 26-year-olds on their parents' policies. a few insurance reforms, preventive care. they don't understand the massive complexity of this law. he never for example holds up this chart.
that the economic committee did last year, trying to depict one-third of his health law. 159 at least new bureaucrats and commissions so the american people are necessarily confused about the law. the president, when he and his secretaries talk about this, they just talk about these small provisions, not about the whole law, and what its sweeping impact is going to be on the health sector, and the president really -- i mean, we heard in his speech last night only 44 word devoted to health care? the administration is adopting a strategy of silence. after spending two years almost -- year and a half -- getting this health law passed. they stopped talking about it. not surprising because the law is unpopular. the latest tracking polls this
morning from the kaiser family foundation, says -- shows the law remains as unpopular as ever. the majority of americans continue to oppose the law and overwhelming majority object the individual mandate, most because they believe it's an overreach of government power, but also because they think mandated insurance -- insurance is too expensive already and they know it's only going to get more expensesy, and they're right, when then government is mandating what has to be in the policy. the individual mandate is center stage, of course, because of the march -- the upcoming supreme court arguments, but the -- another poll -- finding from the kaiser poll is i thought was interesting, a majority, 55%, believe that part office the health law still would be implemented even if the court strikes down the individual mandate and three in ten think the ruling against the mandate
effectively will mean the end of the entire law. so that really sort of feeds into the president's trying to confuse things. to try to get people to think, it's just these small 26-year-olds on their parents' policies. the preexisting condition pools, the free preventive care. filling -- eventually filling the doughnut hole in the medicare prescription drug benefit. after the 2010 elections, which i think were a referendum on obamacare -- the president was belligerent in saying, no, no, no, people really warrant -- it wasn't about obamacare. i just didn't explain it well enough. and insisted that the law only needed a bit of, quote, tweak, end quote. but i think his advisers got to him and they and his white house advisers eventually reached an
inescapable conclusion, and it was said just after the election, the economy, as important as it was, was not the decisive factor in this election. it was health care. it's health care that killed them. talking about the 63 democratic house members who lost their elections. the american people found this to be a crime against democracy. they want it repealed and the issue is going to go on and on. what the american people wanted most from health reform was to get their costs down. so, could there possibly be a more misnamed law than the "affordable care act"? i think not. mr. obama repeatedly has said during this campaign that health costs for the average family would go down by $2,500 a year
by the end of his first term. but costs are rising faster than they have in a number of years. another kaiser family foundation survey found that premiums for the average family policy increased by $1,300 last year alone. three times faster than the year before. and as many more mandates come from washington, those cost will continue to go higher and higher and consumer a bigger share of both family budgets and employer budgets. the $500 billions in knew taxes, only some of which are in effect, will certainly increase the costs health insurance further. there's nobody else to pay for these bills but us. so one way or another, whichever pocket they're take can out it out of, we're going to pay the bills. a none -- number of factors
contribute to rising health care cost but the mandates and taxes and regulation regulations in the lay are going to send costs soaring. the average family policy will cost 20,000 daz year -- dollar a year by 2016, and that policy is no longer optional, it's mandatory if the supreme court upholds this portion of the law. so 20,000 daz year to purchase a health insurance policy that the government tells you, you have to have. mckenzie and company assume tens of millions of people are likely to just say, i'm not buying this policy. the government has to sell me a policy anyway. if i'm -- the government is requiring insurance companies to sell me a policy anyway, so why should i buy a policy if i can buy it at the time i need it for the price -- same premium, and
already we're seeing that happening in massachusetts with this individual mandate. so we may actually wind up with a worse problem of uninsureds. s a americans follow the incentives. shy spend $695 or 2-1/2% of my income as a fine or buy a $20,000 health insurance policy? the same this true with employers. and as they begin to figure out that they can send their employees to the exchange, and eliminate this cost, simply pay the fine. former congressional budget office director assumes 35 million additional people will wind up in the taxpayers' subsidized exchanges and the result of the incentives for them to be dumped from their employer plans into exchanges and we can half a whole other
conversation busy changes -- but they can wind up in coverage that is not going to look a lot different from medicaid does today. and what we know is that medicaid pays doctors and hospitals so little, and especially private physicians, that they just can't afford to see patients, very many medicaid patients. in new york, some visits are $7 for an office visit for medicaid. they can't possibly pay their nurses or pay their overhead for that. and yet that's the program that we're expecting people to go into. so, the president wants us to think that it's just the small stuff. 26-year-olds, free preventive care, and this whole tsunami is coming at us that is -- if the president is reeelectricitied and this law stays in place, even if the individual mandate is struck down there, are huge, huge consequences for our economy.
i believe job creation will continue to stall. we already see it in -- the new cvs where i live, they put in automatic checkout facilities. lower-wage jobs are going to vanish because employers simply can't afford to pay the huge health insurance costs or even the fines for lower income -- lower wage workers and replacing them with technology, the very job that people need to get their foot on the ladder, are the ones going to be killed first by obamacare. imagine also when you have tens of millions of americans deciding to violate federal law as a matter of their family budget decision. what dot that say about or civil
society? what does that mean for the country when tens of millions of people and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of businesses, decide to violate federal law? i think that's where we're going to have a corrosive effect for our economy and our ability to function as a civil society in this country. and one final thought. i was talking with a very wise staff member on the senate side, e-mailing back and forth over the weekend, about this latest directive from health and human services that catholic hospitals and catholic churches -- catholic employers must provide preventive care that includes contraception, including drugs that produce abortion, and sterilization as part of their health plan. well, they would be fined. and the president apparently
called the president of the u.s. council of catholic bishops, timothy dolan, before the announcement was made, saying, don't worry about it. we're giving you a year to comply. and tim timothy dolan said, they're giving us a year to violate our most fundamental conscience and principles? it's not going to work, so they put them in the difficult position of pay the fines or violate our conscience. that's an example of why it's not just the individual mandate that is in question before the supreme court. the very dna of this law is unconstitutional. it's commandeering of the states through the violating the tenth amendment. violating the first amendment, as we said, with the violation
of religious freedom. first amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. and the individual mandate whether or not that is upheld as part of the commerce claw clause, if it is, what does our constitution say about the ability of free citizens to govern ourselves, make our own decisions, or whether or not the federal government is going to come in and order our lives and confiscate our own personal property and tell us, you have to spend $20,000 a year of your family budget even if that's more than your paying for your mortgage or your rent in order to comply with federal law. that's why this law must not stand. if the court upholds it, then we'll be back at the ballot box in 2012 and the american people are going to have the final say on this law. thank you all very much. [applause]
>> wonderful. i thank all three of you for excellent remarks and reminding us again, almost two years later, the problems we have with this health care law. i want to underscore another trend we see, which is this is just what we know today. there is still mounds and mounds of regulation and information that we will still have to wait to see. so, i think that really underscored the danger of moving forward with this healthcare law because we even today are not clear as to what the final package will look like. we have time for questions. so, please, if you have a question for a panelist, please raise your hand and we'll bring you a microphone. have one down here and one in the back. let's start down here. >> how would it be politically possible to repeal this thing if you need 60 senators to do it? and the most optimistic scenario you're not going have 60 senators.
>> well, keith hennessey, who worked in the white house and the senate for a long time, has written a detailed post on this. he is now with stanford, and he said that because much of the law involves spending, that you really only will need 51 votes in the senate in order to repeal most of the major provisions, michael particularly talked about, and you can't spend any money, then the rest of the law is not going -- is going to crumble though majority in the house -- remember, they passed a big piece of this through reconciliationy 2010 in order to get through when scott brown was elected in massachusetts and they only had 59 votes in the senate. so a lot of it could be undone by the -- through reconciliation, and you might google tennessee to look at his
more detailed description of this. >> question in the back. >> a question for michael turner. wasn't obama often tout provisions of the healthcare law prevent insurance providers from denying -- you mentioned that insurance companies will be able to evade the regulation anyway. can you comment on that? >> the problems with evading the provision is it will be even worse than the current situation. the fact is, insurance is expensive to insure people who are sick. the sort of preexisting condition situation is like being able to drive your car into a tree and then pick up the phone and say, geico, now is a too g time for me to have that auto insurance. you're waiting until your sick glory becoming insured. that's a bad risk for insurers. you can pass a law that says insurers can't deliberately discriminate against you okay,
insurers will comply but what will day do? you will have an awful lot of insureons office on the sixth floor of a walkup so it's harder for sick people to sign the paperwork, or the easiest thing if you don't want a lot of cancer patients,, in you're insurance play, you don't sign up any oncologists in your network of doctors. so, basically if you got cancer, you're looking around for which insurance policy to join, i'm not going to sign up with this one because i won't be able to be treatside have to go to this other one. so you'll start seeing a rush from quality among insurers as they basically try to have a lot of health clubs that they'll reimburse for, to signed up healthy people, and very few procedures that it pay for people who are actually circumstance. so they won't have heart surgeons or oncologists or --
you want to lower the cost of insurance for people who are young and healthy by removing a lot of the regulations and mandates, making it cheaper for people to sign up when they're young and healthy, and then allow them to stay in the plan throughout their lifetime as they get sicker and the insurance companies build that cost in and that makes a much more sensible market. >> then if this starts to happen, try to introduce more regulations like requiring the insurance companies -- [inaudible] >> sure. you constantly chase the wheels, so to speak. you can constantly try to come up with new regulations but people always try to find their i wouldway around it and it will cost more and produce a lot less care. >> under the affordable care act they put $5 billion in to help those people who have preexisting conditions if they have been out of work without
insurance for six months or more, and richard foster said, 5 billion will be gone by 201. this is between 2011 and 20 14. they said the administration said about 400,000 people would be moving into the -- to get the insurance in the high risk pool. only 41,000 people have actually signed up for the insurance in the states high risk pools, which makes one wonder how many people there really are with preexisting conditions, but even though so few have signed up, five states have gone back to the feds saying there's not enough money here for us to make the high rfk pool work so they're asks asking for more money. so this is going to cost us so much more than the administration and the cbo ever said. >> can i just say also, one of the reasons the states are spending more is because when the premiums were set at the legal level, according to how the law was written, few people were buying the insurance because it was too expensive.
so they added a new directive saying we're going cut the cost of the insurance, and, therefore, they're running out of money even faster. so the government just doesn't understand how to make a market work. washington does things with directives and spending you or myman and it's not going to work. >> so, a question back there. >> isn't the insurance for -- [inaudible] -- at least $3,000 and as far as universal access, i guess more so for -- what do you think about the rule to direct care -- [inaudible] -- and romney saying
massachusetts is totally incorrect. he never -- [inaudible] -- used the term universal health care, universal insurance and -- [inaudible] there was another question that asked specifically about the -- that only got 51 to 44 and another question asked can we afford to continue the law and that -- [inaudible] >> go ahead. >> just real quick. on the whole idea of universal coverage, i think it's a mistake to focus on the number of people
with insurance as opposed to a healthier population. we tend to conflate the idea of health with health care and health insurance and they're entirely different. the goal is a healthier population. one way to do that is through health care, seeing doctors and hospitals and so on. but it's not the only way. and one way to pay for seeing doctors and hospitals and son is through health insurance but it's not the only way. but in terms of your bang for your buck. the studies repeatedly show that buying insurance for someone is not the -- does got to give you the biggest bang for your buck in terms of health. you'd be better to access community health clippics or put that money on something that has nothing to do with seeing a doctor but has more to do with health, promoting healthy lifestyles, getting people to eat better or work out more.
so, we shouldn't necessarily judge the success of a health healthcare plan by it covers people. in canada, everybody has universal coverage but you wait to see a doctor. and simply seeing a doctor isn't going to make you healthier if you go out and stop exercising and eat too much and don't follow the doctor's advice and stuff like that. so the three should not be conflated. >> i was just going to say, the administration is saying now, 2.5 million kids are on their parents' healthcare plan until the age of 26. so this is a huge success. but as grace marie said, the kaiser family foundation shows the average family premium last year was $15,000. up 9%. the previous year up 3's and i wonder of the 2.5 million children up to the age of 26, how many of them had individual
plans before and decided it was cheaper to leave that and go off and join their parents' plan? that's something i want to look no into because there could be a lot of shift from one type of insurance to another. >> i think we are fortunate enough here to have former congressman johnshed, even though he is behind the whole here so i can't see him. i hope that's you. >> it's me. as the panelist pointed out, the extraordinary cost of this legislation which was misrepresented to the american people as a tax in addition, last user there has been amp evidence of the outrageous failure but congress does not seem to be enacting much legislation. if have two questions. how can we make obamacare an important and critical issue in the 2012 election? because i do think it was a referendum in the 2010 election. and second, should the congress,
specifically the house, be repeal something of the outrage just or outrageously expensive provisions and sending them over to the senate so we can continue to remind the electorate how bad this policy and is how much damage it will do. >> well, we need your continuing leadership and i wish you still were in congress because you would be leading the charge on hour to make sure obamacare remains a key issue in 2012. and unfortunately the house is actually going to be taking up the repeal of the class act, the long-term care provision that democratic members have called a ponzi scheme of the first order. they're going to be taking that up next week bottom line they have the independent payment advisory board, the rationing board and medicare, up for debate. there are certainly going to be attention to the individual mandate, the employer mandate and its focus on killing jobs.
so, i think that's right. i think they need to continue to keep a focus on this law and shine a light on it. one issue after another. so the american people do understand that it is so much more than the half a dozen things the president is going to talk about and it really is this monstrously complex law that your leadership and getting to us understanding how we can reform health reform in the right way, as just been crucially important and i'm glad you're continuing to be affiliated with the heritage foundation to keep your voice in the public's dough main. we need your wisdom. >> part of the problem is congress has the attention span of a gnat. and they figure they took a vote, promised the first vote would be on repeal. they took it. it passed. died in the senate like everything does, and they said, well, we fulfilled our obligation and did what we said
but move on to debating some other crucial issue, naming post offices or whatever. and it did come out today that way will finally have -- they were directed to come up with a replacement plan. it was announced they'll finally have a replacement plan they will announce sometime after the supreme court rules on the legislation as a whole. so, they don't seem to be in any rush to get out and do this. and i think it's partly because the pressure has been off from the american people. we all -- people got cynical. we all want to repeal it. the number is 53% in the latest poll. still want to repeal it. it's 50-20-point margin in am all the polls say they want to repeal it. that hasn't changed. the bill has not gotten any popular no matter how many times it's been explained. but there's so many other people on our mind and people aren't
calling their congressman or asking for it to be repealed and if the congressman hasn't got an phone call the night before, they move on. >> it's so very important that we keep the drum beat up. we have to get the american people reengaged. they were engauged in november of 2010. norman coleman, the former republican senator from minnesota, yesterday, who is an advisedder to mitt romney, said, well, the g.o.p. is not going repeal this. i thought, where is this coming from? certainly not going to help mr. romney's campaign. we have to keep up the pressure for why it is so important, because if mr. obama is re-elected in 2012, he will continue to veto repeal bills. so with the senate on january of last year and it's so very important that the drum beat because in canada, after -- since 1974, we still have the single payer system there some
private clinics that are working but by 2014 it will be imfor possible to get rid of this government program. and so we have to do it now. >> i just want to underscore that's why it's so important as this court case becomes the topic of the news of the day, as the case gets closer, that we also don't forget to put -- that putting all our eggs in that basket is going solve this problem. so we must be vigilant. we have to depend on congress to do their job completely and fully and continuing the road to full repeal. next question. >> my name is chris unger. i'm a doctor. i'd like to take my scalpel to this whole problem, and i'd like to just cut it. let me ask first -- first a comment for everybody. when the system could come into existence, the impact on that as
it intertwines with the declining reimbursement and electronic medical records could have another colassally damaging effect on this system. mostly we're talking about shortages of just about everything and most of you know there's now a very alarming shortage of oncology drugs and we see shortages of immunizations, shortages in the present system of nursing care, and we see this every day in our lives. i have a question. if there's a lawyer in the room. what would happen if the following took place. an insurance company moves into scranton, pennsylvania, and sells insurance without any man dates at all. pennsylvania has 53 mandates. these are the other mandates that don't get talked about? what happens then. they say low-cost insurance with
very high quality and very high coverage that actually pays people in a credible way. what happens after that? >> it would be illegal under pennsylvania law and they would not receive a license to sell within the state and therefore their entire business activity would be illegal. >> is the law in pennsylvania enough to fight it in pennsylvania courts? >> no. this has been litigated. it's essentially a business -- the insurance commissioner has the power to license who sells insurance in the state. if you don't get a license from the state you're not allowed to sell insurance. >> it wouldn't fulfill the individual mandate, either. >> if i may take the liberty of asking a question. if the healthcare law does go into effect will we in your opinion have yet another two-tiered health care system for the haves and have notes? >> a lot of people say, i'm going to be all right. i can afford to pay whatever i need for healthcare and i'll make sure i have a catastrophic
policy. i then think that is -- the health system is a network. it's a web. it's a vital integrated system in which hospitals are providing better surgery because medical device companies are able to come up with new and better surgical techniques and diagnostic techniques. ... >> called radical restructuring of health care that talks about health insurance companies
simply leaving states because they can no longer figure out how to comply with the rules and regulations and make a market in health insurance. and doctors, 40% of doctors thinking of leaving practice when this law goes into effect in 2014. the infrastructure of the health care system declines, and, yes, we may find people going to canada or offshore hospitals being set up, being created. but the quality of health care in america will decline for everyone, and people will not be able to -- be a drug's not created, there's no way you can get that drug. >> i have a slightly different perspective. i actually think the bill's going to be fine, the law, is going to be fine for big pharma and big insurance. that's why, you know, big pharma spent $150 million lobbying for this bill. they showed up at the white house, billy tosen went and met
with the president and came out with agreements to campaign for this bill because they know there's a lot in this bill now, every insurance plan in america has to coffer their prescription drugs, there's going to be a whole bunch of new expansions in medicare for them, brand name drugs covered under the doughnut hole where they were going to generics. so they came out ahead. big insurance, you know, they dropped the public option x they got a mandate that people have to buy their product. it's a $70 billion a year bailout for the insurance industry. now, the small and medium insurance companies can't comply, they're going to go out of business, but that's great for the big insurance companies who are going to control every last little bit of the market. i think the ama lobbied in favor of this bill because they think that's going to mean that their doctors are going to get special treatment under this. they're going to get the doc fix put in and things like that. so i think this is a great bill for big business. i think it's just the little guys that are going to get stepped on in terms of all of
this. >> and, of course, it's amazing that the american medical association only represents about 17% of doctors, yet the man on the street thinks the ama represents every single doctor. my worry, as i said in my little talk, is that, you know, private insurers will be crowded out, and a lot of docs say to me, well, we're just going to do our private concierge practice, and we'll be fine. but if you look to canada, the canada health act outlawed any private medicine, any private payments. so i think we have to be very aware this could be an ultimate, um, consequence of the affordable care act if it's not repealed and replaced. private medicine could be outlawed, and we'll all be in the medicare for all system. >> better get our frequent flier miles ready then. question up here. >> if this bill is as unpopular as i believe it is too, why is it our three top presidential
contenders are all each in their own way for some form of obamacare, and apart from the question more practically, what do we do as voters come november in the presidential election? >> yeah. you know, last night newt said he wanted to make the moon the 51st state. [laughter] so i'm thinking of moving there. [laughter] you know, it really boggles my mind. the fact is, and we talk about why are we not doing more to repeal it, the fact is the two leading presidential candidates on the republican side right now supported an individual mandate. newt at the federal level, mitt at the state level, you know? they both support exchanges. they both support a lot of the insurance regulation that's going on, the community rating and guaranteed issue provisions. i mean, for all the -- the firing barbs a at each other, there's not much of a dime's worth of difference between them
on health care. they both supported the unfunded medicare part d. both of them were in favor of it. so it really is hard to draw a contrast, and i think it's going to be much more important at the congressional level who the congressional and senate candidates are and where they stand on this because, you know, they're all giving lip fs service to, oh, they'll repeal it, i don't see either of them leading the fight. they'll sign it if it comes out of congress, so that's where the fight's going to have to be. >> i think that's right. i think congress is going to really have to lead on this, and if a bill shows up on the president's desk to repeal as much as they can, reconciliation's necessary in the senate then all you need is a president who'll sign that. i think -- romney says he'll repeal, you know, repeal is the first thing he wants to do, but then he says, he says, well, we have to repeal and replace, and
i'm glad i've shown what i would replace it with -- [laughter] that's not cutting i. -- it. >> and it's interesting, i mean, i keep -- well, all three of us have been critics of romneycare, so probably he's not going to ask any of us to be secretary of hhs -- [laughter] i just cannot understand why mr. romney will not say we thought it was a good idea for massachusetts, we have the evidence, and it's not good. but he won't do that. it's very, very frightening. so what i'm going to do is i'm going to buy an old ship, not the one that crashed off the italian coast, i'm going to set up my liberty ship, and we can all get our health care on my liberty ship. [laughter] >> i would also like to underscore what was said, this is why it is so critical that congress gets it right this summer. it will set a important tone on where the future of the health care system should go if health care law can get repealed. and i will say, also, that it
should be a cohesive plan and not just a kind of alphabet soup plan that makes no sense. i think we need to be able to explain to the american people as has been done in this book and heritage's plan on saving the american dream and everyone else has their own ideas of what to do, um, but they all fit together in an important way. and i think that's another important feature moving ahead as this debate continues. do we have any more questions? we're bumping up on our time, but -- >> to the congressman's point who i have a great respect for on the house's side with repealing the entire law, i know that there's a messaging battle, there's more conservative members in the republican caucus that are for outright repeal and only outright repeal. so how do we move to or move away from if we repeal portions of the law, class act, device tax, everything else, like, the horrible portions of it, how do
we move to where we're not making a bad law better? >> there's a huge amount of discussion in the congress on exactly that point. if you repeal it, will you improve it? i think that's such a misunderstanding of how truly monstrous this law is. i mean, you could -- they could pass a law, pass a bill every week between now and november or whatever election day is, 6th, and they would only on the margins be able to make this law better, and it would still not pass the senate. so the house has to continue to keep up the drum beat as a way of educating the american people about what really is in this law. they had a huge part of this law that they just put in there in order to be able to pretend that it was a deficit reduction law. and it's just outrageous. and you shine a light on that. and then you talk about the independent payment advisory board. then you talk about the employer
mandate and it's job killing. they just need to keep up the drum beat. and there are some members, i think that they have sort of begun to realize you need to have handles to explain to people what's in the law, or they're just going to believe that the president's right when he says, oh, don't worry about this, it was just a bunch of the small stuff. all we were doing was putting 26-year-olds on their parents' policy. the only way they're going to understand what's in the law is if congress continues to say here's what's in this law, $575 billion in new taxes, half a trillion in cuts to medicare can, the unbelievable expansion of medicaid that's going to bankrupt the states, mandates on businesses, the mandates on individuals, all of those part of the law that should not stand. >> okay. well, we'll try and take one more question if we have immaterial -- it. going once? okay. one more in the back.
can you wait for the microphone, thanks. >> with the loss ratio, there's been talk about the impact it will have on health savings accounts. it doesn't appear that they're canceling these plans right now from what i've seen, but you could talk about what kind of time frame we're talking about. >> we don't know for certain the impact because the rules haven't been written yet about what's going to count in terms of the medical loss ratio. a lot of it depends which side hhs comes down on, how are employee contributions treated, how are the individual payments out of the account treated, what way do all these things count against the minimum payout requirement that's in this? so we know that some that are set up now probably will fail under any structure, some may qualify, a lot remains to be seen how the rules go into
effect. i believe we're talking 20, not until 2014 until everything goes into place, so that's when, that's when the real impact will be. i suspect before the election there'll be a lot of talk about how lenient these rules will be because you don't want to frighten anybody, and then after the election the rules will appear to be very tight because we know the president actually has said he does not support health savings accounts. he believes they're wrong-headed. he's talked about that. he thinks they're based on a myth that people overconsume health care, so he thinks that, he thinks that this is the wrong approach, and i think he's not going to be very sympathetic to them. >> the real concern with these medical loss ratios where the federal government is telling health insurance what percentage of the premium it has to spend for actual medical care versus administrative costs, the problem with health savings accounts is that the insurance
itself doesn't trigger in until people reach their deductible which is higher which is why the insurance is cheaper. but yet the insurance company has to keep track of the, has to know that you've reached that te deductible so, therefore, they have to do all the administrative cost of making sure, of really figuring out you spent $50 on this doctor's visit, you spent $100 on your meds over here, so they know how to get to that point. so even though they're spending less out of -- on medical care, they still have to do the administrative costs to figure out how, if someone's reached that deductible. and that's what i -- they're killing them. if they would have put in this law we're going to get rid of health savings accounts, i think you actually would have had a hard time passing it because a lot of conservative democrats see that these are valuable. so they're killing them, strangling them through regulation by saying here is this really narrow, prescriptive
rule, and health savings accounts just aren't going to be able to comply with it and, therefore, they would not be legal policies. but there are other examples, but that's a specific one to show why i think they really are on the chopping block. but it's way out in the back 40. >> i was going to say, and about 12 million americans have hsas, and they are very popular, particularly among the younger population that want insurance policy to be there for insurance purposes, catastrophes. but as michael said, the president doesn't like them, and, you know, a few small companies that only offered hsas have already gone out of business, so that's a precursor. and then if you look at the flexible savings accounts, this year it's $2500, so we're seeing the end of that. so i think the writing is on the wall for the fact that this is not something that's part of the ageneral -- agenda, the president or hhs' agenda, the continuation of hsas. >> the way the rule, what comes off as a question is you've got
this pilot paid first out of the hsa. well f that doesn't count as a payout against the premium, then you get into this problem where the insurance company's running up costs and not making a pay out, and they're going to be in violation of the rule. now, so if that payout is counted as being against the premium, it might qualify. but what about the contribution that the employer makes to the health savings account? is that counted as premium cost? in which case then you just made the premium more expensive, and the payout may not qualify as meeting the minimum loss ratio or not, that's why these rules are going to be very important for how they play out. >> if a person pays for medical care out of their health savings account, that doesn't count. >> right. >> it only counts if insurance company pays for it. >> but they're not designed that way. >> they have to calculate how much that individual has paid in
medical expenses as part of the administrative costs. so it's really, it's a are demonic way, i think, of killing health savings accounts indirectly rather than doing it, um, more explicitly. >> and they've already said you cannot use, um, your hsa account for over-the-counter meds. so what does this mean? people go to the drugstore now if they want that medicine, they're going to have to go to the doctor, get a prescription, and this as to -- adds to the cost of our health care. >> another gift of big pharma. you don't use it for the stuff you get over the counter, instead you get a prescription for a brand name drug, you can buy that with your hsa. >> i would just like to end it by saying i guess as we say at the heritage foundation, details matter. and the more the american people know the details, i think the less they will like it. so thank everyone for the panel. we do have books available when you came out, so, please, feel free to pick one up.
but let's thank the panel one more time. [applause] >> we'd like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> world war i had left a very bad taste in americans' mouths. um, the war to end all wars, the war to make the world safe for democracy had done just the opposite and given rise to very undemocratic institutions in italy, in germany and other places. we were walled off, we believed, from war by two giant oceans, um, and after world war i there was a saying going on in america that the only thing we got was death and debt and george m. cohen. so we were distinctly isolationist. in fact, neutrality acts had been passed in the 1930s including one that prohibited american soldiers from leaving north america. that's how and, of course, we passed smooth holly and other restrictive trade acts, so we're
very inward-looking, very uninterested in getting involved in the european war and weren't even thinking about war in the pacific. that's as of the evening of december 6th. >> i think you also mentioned on culture cigarettes were everywhere -- >> cigarettes were everywhere, that's right. >> still following the tradition. they were advertised every. >> every. everybody smoked. the average american smoked about 2500 cigarettes a year, and that's the average american. so -- and people smoked in movies, when they went to the movies, they smoked in restaurants, they smoked on airplanes, they smoked on trains, on train platforms, they smoked in libraries, obviously, in their own homes. cigarettes were very much a part of the culture and considered to be sophisticated. >> and you had radio was the major -- >> absolutely. radio and television. at the time, i beg your pardon, newspapers. there was no television per se. there was a little bit but not really.
although the first television ad had been broadcast in 1941 for bulova watches, but there were almost 2,000 daily newspapers this america in 1941 -- in america in 1941, most of which were afternoon newspapers, not morning newspapers. >> um, we also noted that culture was somewhat different. i was noting, you start each chapter with headlines and some other things that you've researched -- >> right. >> for example, airport coffee shop refuses to serve colored quartet out of the washington evening star. >> yes. >> that, of course, they were very conscious of the divisions -- >> yes. >> -- segregation. >> yes. >> did that not also lay into the interment that eventually came about too? >> well, i don't know -- overlooked is that also italian-americans and german-americans were also picked up in turn by the fbi. eventually over the accepted figures about 100,000 japanese,
italian and german americans were interred at some point during world war ii. but there was, there was great fear in america after december 7th because not only because of the attack and, obviously, there was great anger too because after the attack then japan declares war on america, and this really offended america's, americans' sense of fair play. but the, there was -- government knew and the roosevelt white house knew that both the germans and the japanese had incredible spy networks operating in the united states and in the territory of hawaii including this memo right here was prepared by the office of naval intelligence on december 4th, 26-page memo that we found in the franklin roosevelt library. and i don't think it's ever seen the light of day before, but it goes into great detail about japanese espionage activities
near washington, new york, at all major military installations, especially naval around the country and in the canal zone and in the hawaiian territory. >> so where to you fall on that longstanding question, did roosevelt know? >> no. it's -- i dug as far as i could on that, john. is that, in some ways it's similar to the time before september 11th in that there were pieces to the puzzle scattered about the government, but they had never been assembled, and even so is that even if they had been assembled, nobody, i think, would have come up with the idea that the japanese were going to attack on pearl harbor on december 7th. straws were in the wind. we knew that. the government knew that, the navy knew that and the roosevelt white house knew that. the japanese had had become increasingly militaristic. they had invaded east china, they had invaded manchuria, they had quit the league of nations, they signed a common pact with
nazi germany and fascist italy. they tined the tripartheid -- signed the tripartheid pact which formed a mutual defense treaty with those two and thus formed the axis powers, the three principle axis powers. so more and more belligerent behavior on the part of the empire of japan. and so we were watching very closely -- obviously, not closely enough, but i just want to read from this memo. this is page 2, and this is the hem mow we just, we uncovered. it says the focal point of the japanese espionage effort is the determination of the total strength of the united states. in anticipation of the possible open conflict with this country, japan is vigorously utilizing every available agency to secure military, naval and commercial information paying particular attention to the west coast, the panama canal and the territory
of hawaii. so there were theories, there was speculation. the hilo newspaper the week before actually had a headline that said, which is, you know, the hawaiian island chain that japanese attack expected this weekend. the other people, other areas of government had speculated about a military move by the japanese, but most thought it was just beyond imagination, and everybody thought that the next military move had -- because they'd already invaded french indochina, they had massed over 100,000 troops there, and their next move was invasion of thailand. as of the morning of -- right as bombs were falling in pearl harbor, secretary of state hall was meeting with japanese envoys. but the negotiations had broken down at that point. the p japanese had sent, tokyo
had sent the 13th part of a hong, long communique, and it was all, basically, just an attack on the united states, attack on u.s. military policy, attack on diplomatic policy, and they were essentially announcing that they were breaking up diplomatic relations. but that's not a prelude to war, and withdrawing their ambassadors. but many countries have broken off diplomatic relations without it being a declaration of war. >> and we did not declare war on all three -- >> no, we didn't. that's a very interesting point. the night of december 7th president roosevelt convenes a meeting at the white house with the members of the cabinet and with the congressional leadership. one of the members of the cabinet was henry stimson who was the secretary of war, very capable public servant.
this his papers -- in his papers we found a declaration, a draft of the declaration of war against japan and germany and italy, but as we all know the next day roosevelt only declared war on japan. but it was clearly being discussed, clearly being considered because there was a draft of the declaration of war against all three ax sit powers. >> but they were not considered a unit. >> no, we definitely considered them a unit -- >> actually waited until -- >> well, we waited until they declared war on us. >> on the 11th. >> yes, on the 11th. my assumption is it's interesting because japan attacks us on the 7th. we declare war, and then they, then they declare war the often of the 7th. we declare war on japan on december 8th, but in the intervening four days ever between the 7th and the 11th, i detected no national will in this country, no columns, no editorials, no outrage from the
citizenry saying we have to go to war with nazi germany and fascist italy. it's only after they declare war on us that we go through the motions of declaring war on them. >> and in some ways it's ironic because roosevelt almost immediately goes to the european theater as his primary focus. >> yes. and in the days after we are now at war, in truly a world war, there was, churchill was pressuring roosevelt to devote material and the arsenal of democracy first to europe and then wait for the pacific later. and, indeed, there's some evidence that roosevelt was more inclined to see it in two stages. one is to help great britain and be then, two, to take on the japanese. >> would any of that had to do with the current condition at the time of our military? would we have been -- >> very much so. yeah, very much so. it's just that we didn't really
have a two-ocean navy, and so we were moving ships back and forth between the atlantic and the pacific. and, of course, the japanese had done great damage at pearl harbor to, you know, much of the fleet. fortunately, the three carriers had been out on assignment so that they weren't there, and that was the principle target of the japanese were the three american carriers. so fortunately, they were out. but we were completely defensive in the pacific. we eventually lost wake island, we eventually lost guam, we eventually lost the philippines, the british eventually lost hong kong and singapore and malay ya. they went after midway, but we didn't hold midway, and they went after it again in june of '42, but we were able to win that decisive battle. >> i'll be glad to recognize audience questions, so if you want to put a hand up at any time, i'll catch ya.
otherwise we'll keep on going from up here. i'd like to go over a few people. what about admiral kimmel? >> a true victim. husband kimmel had been recently installed as the head of cincpac in the pacific and was in the, was unaware, was getting war warnings from the, from washington as was short, the army general who was in charge of the garrison, walter short. but they in the days after pearl harbor scapegoats were, frankly, needed. and the blame was either going to go toward because there were calls for congressional investigations, and the media wanted to know what happened and members, you know, how did this happen, how were we caught with our pants down? and quite frankly, the blame was either going to go to roosevelt and going to go to stimson and
hall and the navy, or it was going to go to husband kimmel and short. and so it was kind of a political calculation. the people in washington are more politically sophisticated than these two military men, and they have access to the media that these military men didn't have access to. so eventually they were replaced by, by fdr and actually both left the military in january of 1942. >> you do say that kimmel was obsessed about pearl and it being a target. >> yes, he was. and he had recorded it, and he had taken some preparations, obviously not enough, but he was very can concerned about it. he did have planes up flying, navy planes flying, scouting out, you know, around the hawaiian islands looking for possible ships coming in. but -- >> but i this i you also point out -- i think you always point
out they were always on the same schedule, on the same route. >> exactly. and so the japanese consulate was right there on oahu on a beautiful location that overlooked pearl harbor, so right there out of the consulate they could see the comings and goings of naval vessels, and they could see because the planes were set up to do their inspection of the surrounding waters around hawaii, they were sent up every day at the same time. so the theory was that the japanese were able to schedule the fleet to come in close at a time when those navy planes weren't on their surveillance missions. >> if you'll wait for the microphone and don't mind identifying yourself as a courtesy. thank you. >> hi. my name is joseph brightenbooker. regarding the situation as far as the united states looking outward or inward in december 1941, how much knowledge was there within the country? we were actual f